Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find that there is unanimous consent to further defer the deferred recorded division for second reading of Bill C-47 until Tuesday, October 3, at the end of the time provided for oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a little more challenging to stop a speech or intervention mid-point and pick up a day later, which is what I am doing today. However, it is always an honour to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this House, especially representing the incredible riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap and in my role as deputy shadow minister for fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Rather than starting off mid-paragraph, I will briefly recap some of what I mentioned in my first half yesterday.

First, and most significantly, is that ministerial power would significantly increase under Bill C-55, if passed. It would reject scientific certainty as a basis for the designation of MPAs. Second, Bill C-55 would press inflexible timelines and would accelerate the process that has been used for many years for in-depth consideration.

Bill C-55 would significantly increase the power of the minister, allowing the government to no longer require scientific certainty or consensus among affected stakeholders before imposing closure or restrictions associated with marine protected areas. That may be just what this minister wants, but is that in the best interest of all Canadians?

It has been said that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard already possesses more power than any other minister in cabinet under Canada's current legislation. However, we know that this minister will be replaced, and believe me, we on this side are working hard on that. This minister will be replaced by another minister, and another one after that. All this power placed in the office of one individual may seem okay in the short term, but no one can predict what the long term will bring.

First nations, fishermen, cargo shippers, tourism operators, conservation groups, academics, and many other stakeholders would continue to face the consequences of the government's frantic and half-baked approach to speeding up the process of establishing MPAs, among other things they are doing.

Our Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is currently studying the criteria and process for establishing the MPAs, because we have seen a government hell-bent on reaching a political target. The government seems to be either oblivious to or callous about the havoc its decisions would wreak on the workers and residents who depend on marine and coastal areas for their livelihoods and subsistence.

The government has reneged or failed on so many other political campaign promises that it is now desperately trying to meet its unrealistic timeline to deliver the MPA campaign promise. In moving forward with this bill and short-circuiting the consultation process, the government fails to realize that it is breaking another one of its campaign promises, the promise of delivering openness and transparency.

In recent days we have witnessed the government short-circuit the debate and consultation process for its tax change proposals, effectively quashing debate in the House, but even more so, across Canada. Canadians are continually complaining to our offices in phone calls, emails, and letters. It has been unending, yet the government fails to hear it.

The government is refusing to listen to the thousands of small businesses and family farms that will be financially harmed by ham-fisted tax grabs that will not touch the family fortunes of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. In the same way, through Bill C-55, the government is trying to eliminate the long-established structures and processes for engaging Canadians who will be affected by the new MPAs.

In the course of the fisheries and oceans committee's ongoing study, the committee has heard directly from a number of witnesses who have testified that the process for establishing MPAs should not be rushed.

...understands the requirement to protect marine environments, but we do have concerns surrounding the tight timelines to accomplish these goals. The first step to designating a ministerial order MPA is to gather existing scientific, economic, social, and cultural information on the area. Prince Edward Island is a small province driven by small fishing communities. The displacement of fishers from one community to another as a result of an MPA would shift the economics of the island. Throughout the consultation process, fishing areas were discussed, but not the economics of how a large MPA along the small coastline of Prince Edward Island would impact the island.

Time and again during the committee's examination of the criteria and process used to establish MPAs, we have heard how essential it is to consult with local first nations and stakeholders. Consultation is essential to preventing displacement of traditional uses. Consultation is essential to avoiding undue fishing pressures on adjacent areas that may not be sustainable.

The committee has also heard from Chris Sporer of the Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia, who stated:

Further, if fishermen are forced from productive, high catch per unit effort areas to less productive ones, this means increased fishing time and the need to use more gear to catch the same amount of fish. If you increase fishing time, that means more fuel. That means greater carbon emissions. More gear means increased benthic impacts and the risk of bycatch, for instance, of things like seabirds, something that we've worked very hard in our industry to minimize.

During his testimony, Mr. Sporer also stated that:

The MPA process needs to take into consideration and evaluate the ecological consequences of displacing fishing effort, but it also needs to take into account all the sustainability measures that have been implemented to date. At present they're not being factored into the analysis.

I support protecting our coasts and offshore marine environments, but these protections must be in the right place and developed over the right time frame, with clear objectives that can be measured on a scientific basis and with all the support of locals and Canadians who will be affected.

What I see in Bill C-55 is the ability for the minister to use unrestrained power, without the backing of scientific certainty, to impose restrictions and closures with complete disregard for the culture, heritage, livelihood, and interests of Canadians.

I also see that proposed section 35.3 of the bill proposes a strict timeline of five years from the time an interim MPA is designated by the minister for the government to render a decision to either issue a permanent designation for the MPA or repeal the interim order. This timeline flies in the face of testimony and anecdotal evidence that shows that seven to 10 years are required to thoroughly establish an MPA. How can the government so blatantly choose political expediency over respect for Canadians? The government must recognize and respect the essential value of engaging Canadians affected by the proposed MPA, to hear their concerns, to receive their perspectives, and to respect their opinions.

If the government fails to fulfill these important steps, it prejudices the future sustainability of the MPA. As the government tries to discard scientific basis and democratic consensus from the MPA process, it runs the acute risk of undermining the legitimacy of future MPAs.

There are documented warnings that the government is rushing into our MPA process. If we cannot recognize the mistakes of rushed MPA processes that have happened elsewhere around the world, we run the same risk of repeating them here in Canada. I call on the government to step back from this bill's attempt to further accelerate and exacerbate the MPA process and reset its timeline for achieving MPA objectives.

That is what is needed to ensure that Canadians, especially those who will be most affected by MPAs, are able to factor into the MPA development process.

It is not what one does, it is how one does it that counts. I certainly hope that the government can put its own political interests aside in this instance and do what is right for the people of Canada.

Terry BeechLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member opposite from beautiful British Columbia for his speech and also to express how much I enjoy working with my colleague at the fisheries and oceans committee.

A lot of my constituents back in British Columbia expressed that we are not moving urgently enough to protect our oceans and that in fact we might be taking our oceans for granted, which is why I was so excited when we made the commitment to get to 10% of marine protection by 2020.

Under the Oceans Act currently, there is no protection until there is full protection, and that is a problem because, as the member stated, it could take seven years on average and up to 10 years to pass one of these MPAs. Certainly the precautionary principle under which so many decisions in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are made is in line with the concept of what we are trying to do. We are trying to give people the tools they need to protect the areas that we urgently need to protect.

I would say to the member opposite that certainly the concept of scientific certainty cannot be used as a justification to do nothing when our oceans are in fact in trouble.

The member brought up the fact that some of the residents of B.C. are asking the government to move faster on this issue. However, I compare that to travelling down the highway and having a truck coming up behind that wants to go faster. Does that mean we should exceed the speed limit? I do not believe so. I think the same analogy should be applied to marine protected areas. I think that rushing into something that is so permanent and so involved and intricate is a mistake on behalf of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap. I have had a chance to sit with him on the fisheries and oceans committee. Certainly as British Columbians we have a lot in common.

One thing I want to ask the member is if he agrees with the Liberals that oil and gas exploration should be permissible in marine protected areas, and maybe even aquaculture and fish farms. Does he think it would be adequate that they could be located in marine protected areas?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a robust assessment system in place. Environmental assessments take place before any development can happen. Exploration, development, etc., are all done under quite strict scrutiny. If those exploration and development proposals are not seen to be environmentally sustainable, they are not permitted to move forward.

I think marine protected areas need different definitions for different areas of the country. We are certainly hearing from witnesses in testimony at committee that Canada should not have a designation for MPAs in Canada that would meet a worldwide standard. We have a vast coastline, three different coasts, and at least three different types of climates. These simply cannot be covered by one cut and dried definition.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap comes from direct experience in my own riding, where there has been a proposal for a national marine conservation area for some time. It is described in the government documents as the Southern Strait of Georgia national marine conservation area. It is known within our community as the Salish Sea conservation area. To give the member an idea of how long the proposal has existed, it was endorsed in 1972 by Jacques Cousteau.

I believe that Bill C-55 is long overdue to create mechanisms to speed up the process of establishing marine protected areas. I have many questions for the Liberal government and I have amendments that will come forth in committee, but I just want to put on record that I do not agree with the idea that this bill would give the Minister of Fisheries unwelcome draconian powers.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he does not think that after waiting from 1972 to 2017, we might be able to do something to speed up the process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for all the work she does as the lone member of her party. It is a daunting task to try to keep on top of all of the legislation that comes before the House, so I recognize her for that.

I understand what she is saying about the proposed designation of an MPA off the B.C. coast going on for a long time, since 1972 or 1973. That is certainly a long time. That can be used as an example of how complex some of these proposed MPAs are. All of them cannot be understood within a five-year time frame.

While I do agree that 20 or 30 years is too long, there are processes in place for protecting fish stocks and for protecting ecological areas. We cannot simply put a fixed timeline on something that is so complex.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought up a great point. The process has been slow in some areas, and things do need to be done.

I want to ask my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap, who sits with me on committee and is my deputy shadow minister on this file, if he could perhaps share with those who are in the House some of the comments that we have heard from hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, people and families who depend on the fishery for their livelihood, the stakeholders, the true folks on the ground, the local communities and indigenous communities who do not feel they have been consulted or listened to.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to work with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George as his deputy shadow minister.

The member asked about some of the testimony and comments that we have heard from individuals across the country. They really focused around not being heard by the government. We hear constantly from fishermen, from processors, and from first nations, especially those in British Columbia, where they have long been fighting for their unceded territories. They do not have treaties or agreements with government. Those types of things are going to take much longer than the five-year time frame that is being proposed in this legislation.

That is why I am not going to support this legislation in its current format. The five-year time frame will be unreasonable. I do not see any allowance in the bill for any extension of the temporary MPAs that may be put in place. These are the types of problems I see with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps our hon. colleague could share with the House an example of a marine protected area that took about seven to nine years and started with true consultation. I am talking about the testimony that we heard from the gentleman from California. It is one of the best examples of an MPA that we have seen to this point.

Canada has the longest shoreline in the world and is being compared to other countries with small shorelines. We can certainly learn from California's experience with the MPA process. I would like our hon. colleague to comment on that.